One of my concerns is that I keep reading that full frame is "better" (most from seasoned pros writing the articles). It makes me worried that I will want more detail. I don't have a $3,000 budget for a body but I want pro quality of work that could be sold and printed. I will be adding this to my list of services as well. I am a Web Designer and I usually refer clients out to my photographer friends. They often don't have time so it would be good to just be able to do it.

Click to expand...

Full frame theoretically is better but it is much more expensive, and everything is bigger and heavier. Crop sensor is as good as anyone needs for any reasonable use. I've made 28"x40" canvas prints from my crop sensor camera and they look great, even very close up.

Think of it this way - crop sensor at say 20+ megapixels gives more resolution and detail than what any 35mm film based system would give. But I recall pro's had no issue shooting 35mm. Lets face it - a lot of pro's are gear snobs and can't deal with the idea that consumer "kit" type stuff can produce outstanding images, that in many or most uses are indistinguishable from what their gear would produce. Plus they can deduct their gear costs etc. so the increased expense isn't really an issue.

Here is a 100% crop of an image I took with my D5500 on Wednesday. It's what - 3 or so inches wide on a typical monitor? And it still looks pretty good. If you made a print that size it would be 33" x 50". And if you really wanted to go bigger you could, because who is going to be looking at huge prints close up?

Budget. Canon seems to be more bang for the buck compared to Nikon. Especially the lenses.

And that IS part of my problem. Too many choices makes it even more confusing to a beginner.

Click to expand...

Well just make sure you are looking at all the available sources when checking lens cost. When it comes to Nikon kit lenses you can get them very cheap off eBay gray market. Typically about half the retail price. There is no way I would pay retail.

As far as your earlier question about what lenses to get - I would consider skipping the kit lens altogether and go with:

I have found KenRockwell.Com to be a good source for gear reviews. He seems to be pretty straight about stuff. Just watch out because sometimes it seems like he writes "reviews" for stuff he has not actually owned.

Honestly ,
I'm behind the curve.
I've had 3 of the rebel line.
I'm at a loss to tell you models. I'm sure they are all discontinued. (I don't think they use the rebel name anymore. I'm sure I had an XTi, and XSi, I know I have a newer one , I think 2 generations newer). I also inherited a 10D and a 50D.
I don't really think you can go wrong with any of the new DSLRs.
My go to lens is the 18-55 stabilized zoom.
I think you're getting good advice from everyone here.
While no lens does everything great.
This gives you a lightweight mid wide to mid Tele and a little protection from camera shake in a small package.
I think you'll be surprised how much it's like shooting a film 35.
Also if you haven't noticed.
You can take a dozen shots (or more) of something. Throw away 11 (or more) . You don't have to worry about film roll size, processing costs, and your pc becomes a darkroom with powerful editing tools and your printer is an enlarger.

I'm not going to try to sway you towards one make or another, just give you some of my observations from my photographic journey.
I've found that the camera body is only the box that holds the media the image is recorded on, be it film or digital.
What really counts, at least in my opinion, is the lens used. Each lens has it's own character.
I've come to enjoy being able to use many different lenses as no two are really alike. With my A7ii, every lens is image stabilized. This may not be important to you now, but think about the future and what you may encounter.
I agree with you, Canon offers a lot of bang for the buck, but I can adapt those same lenses to my camera and reap the same benefits.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't limit yourself by zeroing in on one mfg'r until you've explored more.

Lets face it - a lot of pro's are gear snobs and can't deal with the idea that consumer "kit" type stuff can produce outstanding images, that in many or most uses are indistinguishable from what their gear would produce.

1) Image quality, AF and getting the shot right (first time) in the camera is most important. Less photo post-processing and tweaking is best.

2) Consider what you're going to get $-wise on the back end when you upgrade and have to sell your gear. This is important and needs consideration. You will get back more money when you upgrade L-lenses as they hold value extremely well, it's just the initial investment that hurts a little for the Ls. You'll be happy with the images though and the build quality of them.

The 7D MkII is a very good body. If it were me (just saying), I'd sacrifice the speed and go to a FF, an older 5D MkII. A great, proven camera body. If you have a little bit more of a budget, grab a used 5D MkIII with low shutter count. You will not be disappointed whatsoever.

^^^^ I'm too lazy to go back and review the thread to see if someone mentioned this already, but you will have more reach with the crop but there's just something about FF that gets the image right and you don't have to do the math.

To be honest, if you slapped L-glass on a Rebel T2i you're images are gonna look pretty damn good, too. I was in the same boat as you,... I went 7D then just had to have the FF. Everybody's experience is different. Enjoy the ride!

It depends on what you want and need. Do you really need very shallow DOF and/or extreme low light sensitivity? Then get full frame. Do you want something relatively light and comfortable to take out with you all day, without feeling like you have a small dumbbell around your neck? Then get crop.